This study investigated the effect of the soil water holding capacity and permeability under different land use patterns in the Tianzhu alpine region of the Eastern Qilian Mountains,and four land use patterns were selected,namely,natural grassland,rehabilitated land,oats land and perennial grassland. As time went by,different land use patterns imposed significant effects on the water holding capacity power and permeability. The soil bulk density was rehabilitated land(1. 104 g/cm3) > perennial grassland(1.061g/cm3) > oats land(1.011 g/cm3) > natural grassland(0. 781 g/cm3) ; the soil overall porosity was natural grassland(68.196%) > oats land(60.606%) > perennial grassland(58. 93%) > rehabilitated land(57. 5%) ; the natural grassland had the most water holding capacity power and soil steady infiltration rate(681. 966 t/hm 2 and 3. 02 mm/min) ,while the rehabilitated land had the least(575. 005 t/hm 2 and 1. 004 mm/min) . In terms of soil water-holding capacity and permeability,the natural grassland was the best out of these four use patterns while the rehabilitated land was the worst pattern. In other words,both oats land and perennial grassland had better water holding capacity power and permeability than the rehabilitated land. This study investigated the effect of the soil water holding capacity and permeability under different land use patterns in the Tianzhu alpine region of the Eastern Qilian Mountains, and four land use patterns were selected, namely, natural grassland, rehabilitated land, oats land and perennial grassland . As time went, different land use patterns incorporating significant effects on the water holding capacity power and permeability. The soil bulk density was rehabilitated land (104 g / cm3)> perennial grassland (1.061 g / cm3)> oats land ( 1.011 g / cm3)> natural grassland (0.781 g / cm3); the soil overall porosity was natural grassland (68.196%)> oats land (60.606%)> perennial grassland (58.93%)> rehabilitated land (57. The natural grassland had the most water holding capacity and soil steady infiltration rate (681.966 t / hm 2 and 3.02 mm / min), while the rehabilitated land had the least (575.005 t / hm 2 and 1. 004 mm / min). In terms of soil water-holding capacity and permeability, the natu ral grassland was the best out of these four use patterns while the rehabilitated land was the worst pattern. In other words, both oats land and perennial grassland had better water holding capacity power and permeability than the rehabilitated land.